header-logo header-logo

Peers inflict pain on May’s Bill

10 May 2018
Issue: 7792 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

The government has suffered its 14th defeat in the House of Lords on the Brexit Bill after Peers voted for the UK to remain in the Single Market.

Peers voted 245-218 for the cross-party amendment, brought by Labour’s Lord Ali, for the UK to negotiate continued membership of the Single Market (European Economic Area) with 83 Labour Peers defying the whip to do so.

Peers also voted in favour of a cross-party amendment to remove the 29 March 2019 departure date from the EU Withdrawal Bill. The Duke of Wellington, who proposed the amendment, said it gave the House of Commons ‘an opportunity to think again’, although he said any extension would be limited to a few weeks since the European Parliament elections take place on 23 May 2019.

The Lords backed an amendment specifying that the UK can replicate in domestic law any EU law made on or after exit day and can continue to take part in EU agencies. And they voted in favour of giving the Lords powers to refer statutory instruments back to the House of Commons.

Meanwhile, the House of Lords’ EU Justice Sub-Committee, led by Helena Kennedy QC, has issued a stark warning on the consequences of leaving the EU without effective dispute resolution systems in place.

In a report published last week, Dispute resolution and enforcement after Brexit, it warned that disagreements with the EU could be ‘potentially insoluble’ and individuals and businesses left without any ability to protect and enforce their rights. Moreover, without the jurisdiction of the CJEU, the government would have to agree multiple dispute resolution procedures.

Baroness Kennedy said: ‘We are really worried now about the lack of time.

‘This is difficult stuff, and unless both sides show real flexibility in the coming months, not only could the rights of businesses and individuals be threatened, but the whole Brexit withdrawal agreement could end up being potentially unenforceable.’

 

Issue: 7792 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll